Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Most 1st Team All-Pros Drafted Since 2000

The Huddler

By The Huddler,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

jfra78 Grand Master

jfra78

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

I would dispute he hits on more than most. Just like I said, he takes safer picks. He also misses more wildly than most.  But I will certainly admit this makes it look like it was more on coaching. 

Not true at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waldo Grand Master

Waldo

Posted
Posted

That certainly is a slice of the pie. Maybe also compare our record over that time. Different GMs, Coaches and Owners yet we still have not turned the corner on stability or winning. The one time we glimpsed it all the people in charge couldn't get out of their own way.

I really hope Rhule is a change and not more of the same. Like his vision on players now I want to see some good coaching: teaching players, putting them into a position to succeed and game day/ in game adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Obviously it means the gm built a good roster but thd coach couldnt do anything with it

Wait a second---a dozen or so players over how many years is a "good roster?"  Let's not use words that carelessly.  How do you know the head coach didn't develop the players into all pros?  You think they were all pros when drafted--and the coach did nothing but suck?

No--the GM job is to build solid teams--and most GMs will tell you, you build the roster from the bottom up.  Marty used the first round to find icing to slather all over a stale, unimaginative cake.  Don't  get me wrong--Marty has a solid history of drafting solid first rounders at some positions, but when was the last time he drafted or signed a good DT before Thursday?  You have to address all needs all the time:

 

Other aspects of the GM's job---do you think his failures here are the head coach's fault?  If so, is it not his job to hire and fire the head coach?:

  • Contracts and salary cap management
  • Drafting rounds 2-7
  • Trades
  • Hiring and firing the head coach when appropriate to do so
  • Extensions'
  • Signing free agents
  • Signing undrafted free agents
  • Building a 53-man roster that consistently wins.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Icege said:

Looks like they shorted us a few players:

Cam Newton
Kawann Short
Thomas Davis
Luke Kuechly
Josh Norman
Ryan Kalil
Christian McCaffrey
Kris Jenkins
Julius Peppers
Steve Smith
Jordan Gross
Deangelo Williams
Jon Beason
Evan Mathis (drafted by Carolina, got the recognition while with NO)
Greg Hardy

15 by my count

Andrew Norwell was not drafted by Carolina (UDFA), but did make an All Pro roster. Olsen & Tolbert were also selected, but were originally drafted by other franchises.

You are thinking pro bowl, not all pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Having some All Pros on a deeply flawed overall roster still equals a bad team.

If you can't find solid players at every position, you suck.  As an opposing head coach, I am going to attack your weakness.  The idea is to be formidable at every position.  We were great at some, terrible at others.  Why? 

1. The way to manage the cap is to keep as many drafted players on the roster as possible--which means you must do a good job drafting AFTER round 1.

2.  When you cannot draft players to find starters, future starters, and decent depth, you have to pay veterans to do it. Less cap space means less talent at some positions.

In my opinion, Marty does 1/10 of the job well.  This draft was different---Rhule knows the kinds of players he can win with and he was behind the late round finds.  Pride?  Rhule talked about how he was talking to him on Zoom.  Robinson (5th round)?  Rhule talked about conversations with his high school and college coaches (remember, the Big 12 rivalries).  The sixth rounder?  Rhule knew that only he had key information about Roy's speed and work ethic.  The reason this draft seems different is because it was different.  Marty will get credit for Roy, and Robinson, and Pride---and he deserves a lot of it.  But make no mistake about it--this was RHULE's draft.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Schultz Grand Master

Sgt Schultz

Posted
Posted

A few weeks ago I looked into success of first round or upper first round QBs draft picks.  The best data I found reported it several ways, because they did not want to get into anointing All-Pro as the be-all, end-all standard.  They compared All-Pro, Pro Bowl, and a definition of bust that seemed reasonable. Their point was defining what equaled success was not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Selecting All-Pros is not, in and of itself, a GMs job.  It's great when it happens, but a GM that selects more All-Pros than any other GM will eventually find himself out of a job if the team does not produce wins and playoff appearances (championships are beyond the reach of many organizations). 

The GM's job includes putting together a complete talent pool.  It is something the Panthers have failed at in general.  We are always sorely lacking at more than one position.  For years it was WRs.  We drafted some pretty decent-sounding WRs, and they never seemed to stick.  I think the same can be said of OL.  We had a success here and there, but we just had our franchise-best QB lose his job, in no small part to the fact that he was beaten like a rented mule behind our OL.  Those deficiencies span two GMs.

From where I sit, relying on less than one stellar draft pick per year on average is not going to sustain winning seasons.  It is what happens underneath that level.  I'd gladly trade half of the All-Pro numbers for the ability to not have a roster that is every year sorely lacking in a couple of areas.  That means getting quality at the middle round draft picks (and targeted FA signings), and sometimes finding that 5-7th round pick that sticks.  At least enough to not have glaring holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
klumme Enthusiast

klumme

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jfra78 said:

Obviously it means the gm built a good roster but thd coach couldnt do anything with it

What?

 

It means Hurney put some fantastic players on the roster, not that the roster was fantastic. You clearly cant win with some All pro when most of the other players  are poo and we are in cap hell from stupid contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Waldo
      Clowney released

      By Waldo · Posted

      Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • pantherclaw
      Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I have zero issues with this.  
    • MHS831
      Panthers start making cuts to roster

      By MHS831 · Posted

      Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...